Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

improve the docs for V5 launch #5820

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Mar 9, 2019
Merged

improve the docs for V5 launch #5820

merged 25 commits into from
Mar 9, 2019

Conversation

ndelangen
Copy link
Member

Issue: docs are lagging behind implementation

What I did

Bringing the docs up to date

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Mar 2, 2019

This pull request is automatically deployed with Now.
To access deployments, click Details below or on the icon next to each push.

@ndelangen ndelangen force-pushed the tech/improve-docs branch from d91c074 to fdc055f Compare March 2, 2019 20:33
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 2, 2019 20:33 Abandoned
@ndelangen ndelangen force-pushed the tech/improve-docs branch from fdc055f to 1e6650b Compare March 4, 2019 11:19
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 4, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #5820 into next will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             next    #5820   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   34.91%   34.91%           
=======================================
  Files         648      648           
  Lines        9496     9496           
  Branches     1377     1377           
=======================================
  Hits         3316     3316           
  Misses       5563     5563           
  Partials      617      617

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2339ce7...a5ae822. Read the comment docs.

@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 11:19 Abandoned
@ndelangen ndelangen force-pushed the tech/improve-docs branch from 1e6650b to 9d7c28d Compare March 4, 2019 12:18
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 12:18 Abandoned
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 13:00 Abandoned
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 13:06 Abandoned
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 13:31 Abandoned
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 13:36 Abandoned
@vercel vercel bot requested a deployment to staging March 4, 2019 13:55 Abandoned
Copy link
Member

@shilman shilman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look great!

@ndelangen ndelangen changed the title WIP: improve the docs for V5 launch improve the docs for V5 launch Mar 6, 2019
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
"common-tags": "^1.8.0",
"gatsby": "^1.9.279",
"gatsby-link": "^1.6.45",
"gatsby-plugin-sharp": "^2.0.12",
"gatsby-plugin-sharp": "^1.6.48",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ndelangen why downgrade?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had some issues, I think the gatsby-plugin-sharp v2 is for gatsby v2

> We're trying to make storybook more zero-config over time, **help to hook into the config of generators is very welcome**.

<details>
<summary>This is what the config for storybook looks like when using CRA in dev-mode:</summary>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do we put this in our docs? Can we just link to a file that won't get out of date every time somebody makes an change?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is no single file that has this info, it's all merged from multiple presets.

I think it's valuable for people who want to customize to quickly see what we're shipping with to most users.


```js
{
mode: 'development',
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Duplicated??

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, didn't know a good way of having a SSOT for this.

Copy link
Member

@shilman shilman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See comments above

@shilman
Copy link
Member

shilman commented Mar 7, 2019

@ndelangen Outside the scope of this PR but we should publish the frontpage components as a standalone library and share them between both projects

@ndelangen
Copy link
Member Author

@ndelangen Outside the scope of this PR but we should publish the frontpage components as a standalone library and share them between both projects

I agree with the out of scope part

I'm not sure publishing these components as a library is worth our time. I mean maybe.

I think the docs should be more pure about 'content' and not about styling.
This PR is mainly to get it somewhat in sync visually, until we've integrated docs better into the build of the frontpage repo I think.

@ndelangen
Copy link
Member Author

@shilman Good to merge?

# Conflicts:
#	docs/src/pages/configurations/theming/index.md
@ndelangen
Copy link
Member Author

@shilman can we please merge this, do you think?

Copy link
Member

@shilman shilman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Great job 🚀

@shilman shilman added patch:yes Bugfix & documentation PR that need to be picked to main branch and removed release labels Mar 9, 2019
@shilman
Copy link
Member

shilman commented Mar 9, 2019

Adding redirects as documentation before I merge, although finally they will be applied to the frontpage directory not here

@shilman shilman merged commit 953c43b into next Mar 9, 2019
@shilman shilman deleted the tech/improve-docs branch March 9, 2019 00:30
shilman added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 9, 2019
@shilman shilman added the patch:done Patch/release PRs already cherry-picked to main/release branch label Mar 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation patch:done Patch/release PRs already cherry-picked to main/release branch patch:yes Bugfix & documentation PR that need to be picked to main branch
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants